Will the next 2011-2020 decade be warmer than the previous 2001 – 2010 decade?

NTZ and cool readers are are pledging money and betting it will be cooler, or the same.

Warm readers, led by Rob Honeycutt, say it will be warmer, and so far have pledged $5200 on it.

We are now trying to get as many pledges for money as we can. The loser of the bet will have to pay the amount pladged to a charity for children in dire need, such as Children Hospice International or Doctors Without Borders.

So far NTZ and cool readers have pledged over $2,000 (10 Jan 2011), betting the next decade will be cooler. If the bet were decided today, then the loser would have to pay this amount to the charity (which has not been chosen yet).

Do you want to join the bet? Pledge an amount!

The bet

If the decade of 2011 – 2020 is cooler or the same on average globally than the decade of 2001 – 2010, then warmist Rob Honeycutt and warmist betters will have to pay to charity the total amount that gets pledged by NTZ and readers betting on a cooler decade.

If the average global temperature for the decade 2011 – 2020 is warmer than the average of 2001 – 2010, then NTZ and coolist readers will have to pay everything they pledged to the charity.

Where, when and how do I bet?

You can bet simply by leaving a reader comment below telling how much you want to put down. I will then put your username and email address and amount on a list. I’ll be posting the updated list from time to time (without your e-mail address of course). Please make your pledges before October 1, 2011.

Which dataset will decide the bet?

It has been agreed to use a composite of RSS and UAH lower troposphere temperature – close to the earth’s surface. The result will be accepted without quibbling, as it is agreed that it’s the best we’ve got. The average of the two will decide the bet!

How and when do I pay if I lose?

Payment will be made when the bet is settled, i.e. January, 2021, or possibly earlier if it’s clear who the winner will be, but only with mutual agreement. If us coolists lose, then they will have to pay what we pledged directly to the yet-to-be-chosen charity organisation. You will be asked to pay when the bet is settled, i.e. January 2021.

WHICH CHARITY GETS THE MONEY?

As mentioned above, the charity organisation is yet to be chosen, but will (1) be one that both sides agree on, (2) help children in dire need (3) have low overhead and (4) be international.

What happens if the loser doesn’t pay?

If the loser of the bet refuses to pay, then he will be forever regarded as a useless deadbeat loudmouth scumbag with no honour. We have a bucket of hot tar and a sack of feathers ready.

How will we control if someone pays?

I’m keeping a list, and somehow we will get a statement from the charity organisation confirming that payment was indeed made.

What if something happens to me and I can’t pay?

Not your fault. You’ll be simply taken off the list and you will be remembered as a generous and honourable person.

So please pledge a nominal amount!

I hope that more readers here will pledge some money for this bet. Again it would be nice to have the warmists pay the full $5200 they’ve pledged thus far. Right now us coolists have about $2000, and so we need to get more coolist bets. Minimum bet is $10.

Pierre, I am going to start telling the other blogs i visit to come over and join in on the fun. I am sorry but i do not know how to link to your site but i will tell them to come on over as fast as my two fingers can do the dance on the keyboard.

I’m happy for every bet that comes in. $20 is a nice pledge. For many of us, the science is not settled, like it is in your view.
Why are you in such a hurry to lose your money?
This has been going on for only a week and we are already over $2000. I think it’s a great start. What do you think about accepting pledges for half a year? What do you say?

$200 (US or Canadian)
That the planet is going to be warmer on average in the next decade (2011-2020) than 2001-2010. Sadly, and unsually, a bet that I do not wish to ‘win’. My preferred charity is Medecins Sans Frontiers.
sacculina

Sorry Rob. H it’s not personal. I never bet, not even on certainties. This is very unfair on you and your chums but, at least, it is for a good cause.
If I’m allowed a general comment on the chosen charity, much as I admire medical colleagues who devote their careers to helping a small number of individuals it is clear that the greatest benefit comes from public health improvements i.e. clean water, sanitation and nutrition.
Ultimately, a charity which educates and liberates women would be my choice but none exists in the places that need it.
I pledge $100. win or lose! ( but R. H. pays as well if it is cooler)
Great fun if it weren’t for the windmills etc. as time will clearly tell.
Regards, TGW.
=========================================PG: Thanks! It’s for a good cause…I think our chances are good. I’ll ut you down on the list, and will appear in the next update.

I’m in for $250.00 on the cool side. Please contact me at my email address if you need additional information.
================================PG: Yeah! Thanks. I’ll put you down on the list and you’ll appear in the next update. Right now I have your e-mail address, and that’ll do for now. We’re gaining on the warmists.

$250 for another decade of cooling (the trend is your friend!). I’m guessing that in 10 years $250 will be about the cost of a deli sandwich.
============================PG: Thanks…the odds that it will be that devaluated are far greater than the IPCC warming scenarios coming true. You’re on the list and an update will appear in a few days.

Rob, I’ll accept the risk of a Krakatoa scale eruption, and double your stake on the “warmist” side of the bet (There might be a confused other Rob Huneycutt who I just contacted via Facebook.)

Mr. Gosselin, As a show of good faith I just donated half of the “wager” ($2,500) to Doctors Without Borders which I expect to be quickly matched by “coolist” pledges. The “warmers” are now up to $10,200. (Come on readers. 🙂

Your site’s civility is refreshing, and your charity of choice is worthy of support by all. I’ll send you the donation receipt if you send me an email address.

Put me down for $200 for another decade of cooling.
========================================PG: You got it…you’re on the list and will show up in the next update. And you are right in saying “another decade of cooling”. Temps peaked in the late 90s, and are now gradually trending downwards. Problem with the warmists is that they like looking at charts upside down. Thanks for the pledge, Stephen.

New to site but please put me down for 50 usd. It will be warmer. I really don’t expect to lose but if I’m still around contact me anyway win or lose because they are good charities.
=====================================PG: Thanks! You’re on the list.

200 hundred dollar wager to charity that the next decade will be cooler than the last decade.After all it was the war-mist in a thousand years. How could it repeat?
===============================PG: Thanks Adrian, you will appear on the next list in the next update. Also read the latest post!You’re already on the list. Do you wish to double?

BTW, it’s been nearly 6 months since the last update and the last three months have been warmer than the 2001-2010 average. Better do an update once the September numbers are in – leave it too long after that and the warm side might be in the lead. Likely not, given the recent return to La Nina conditions, but I think we can safely assume La Nina won’t last forever.

With 8 years to go, I don’t think it is at all clear just from the stats which way the current decade will land. I like your idea of expressing difference of opinion by pledging for charities, so why not keep the betting open (to 2015) and give them as much as possible?

People in the USA, are being told by the government and media that global warming is man-made. If that is true, how can the government and media explain the high temperatures the earth has experienced in past years? Let us look back in the world’s history: for example, between roughly 900AD and 1350AD the temperatures were much higher than now. And, back then there were fewer people, no cars, no electric utilities, and no factories, etc. So what caused the earth’s heat? Could it be a natural occurrence? The temperature graph at the bottom of this article shows the temperatures of the earth before Christ to 2040.

In the book THE DISCOVERERS published in February 1985 by Daniel J. Boorstin, beginning in chapter 28, it goes into detail about Eric the Red, the father of Lief Ericsson, and how he discovered an island covered in green grass.

In approximately 983AD, Eric the Red committed murder, and was banished from Iceland for three years. Eric the Red sailed 500 miles west from Iceland and discovered an island covered in GREEN grass, which he named Greenland. Greenland reminded Eric the Red of his native Norway because of the grass, game animals, and a sea full of fish. Even the air provided a harvest of birds. Eric the Red and his crew started laying out sites for farms and homesteads, as there was no sign of earlier human habitation.

When his banishment expired, Eric the Red returned to congested Iceland to gather Viking settlers. In 986, Eric the Red set sail with an emigrant fleet of twenty-five ships carrying men, women, and domestic animals. Unfortunately, only fourteen ships survived the stormy passage, which carried about four-hundred-fifty immigrants plus the farm animals. The immigrants settled on the southern-west tip and up the western coast of Greenland.

After the year 1200AD, the Earth’s and Greenland’s climate grew colder; ice started building up on the southern tip of Greenland. Before the end of 1300AD, the Viking settlements were just a memory. You can find the above by searching Google. One link is:

The following quote you can also read about why there is global warming. This is from the book EINSTEIN’S UNIVERSE, Page 63, written by Nigel Calder in 1972, and updated in 1982.

“The reckoning of planetary motions is a venerable science. Nowadays it tells us, for example, how gravity causes the ice to advance or retreat on the Earth during the ice ages. The gravity of the Moon and (to a lesser extent) of the Sun makes the Earth’s axis swivel around like a tilted spinning top. Other planets of the Solar System, especially Jupiter, Mars and Venus, influence the Earth’s tilt and the shape of its orbit, in a more-or-less cyclic fashion, with significant effects on the intensity of sunshine falling on different regions of the Earth during the various seasons. Every so often a fortunate attitude and orbit of the Earth combine to drench the ice sheets in sunshine as at the end of the most recent ice age, about ten thousand years ago. But now our relatively benign interglacial is coming to an end, as gravity continues to toy with our planet.”

The above points out that the universe is too huge and the earth is too small for the earth’s population to have any effect on the earth’s temperature. The earth’s temperature is a function of the sun’s temperature and the effects from the many massive planets in the universe, i.e., “The gravity of the Moon and (to a lesser extent) of the Sun makes the Earth’s axis swivel around like a tilted spinning top. Other planets of the Solar System, especially Jupiter, Mars and Venus, influence the Earth’s tilt and the shape of its orbit, in a more-or-less cyclic fashion, with significant effects on the intensity of sunshine falling on different regions of the Earth during the various seasons.”
Read below about carbon dioxide, which we need in order to exist. You can find the article below at:http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html.

FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE.

Of the 186 billion tons of carbon from CO2 that enter earth’s atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth’s oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

At 380 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth’s atmosphere–less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth’s current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life– plants and animals alike– benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there, but continuously recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth’s oceans– the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions and all other government proposals and taxes would have a negligible effect on global climate!

The government is lying, trying to use global warming to limit, and tax its citizens through “cap and trade” and other tax schemes for the government’s benefit. We, the people cannot allow this to happen.

Why is the betting closed now? Surely as the decade goes on it will be more evident that global warming is nonsense so why not allow the bet to show how views are changing based on what is being measured rather than the propaganda of the IPCC.

Why did none of you anti-science clowns take my US$1,000 wager? For the past four years I had a US$1,000 wager that backed the proposition that by end of year 2016 there would be a new record high global average temperature— and I offered that wager to many thousands of deniers: none of you clowns would accept the wager. This showed you don’t believe what you claim to believe.

I pledge here and now US$1,000 on the proposition that the decade of the 2010s will be warmer than the decade of the 2000s. The 2000s was 14.56c, and so far this decade is +0.06c warmer. The 2010s will be about +0.16c warmer than the 2000s.

Your is a weather wager, and not a climate one.
I got you down for a warmer decade.
According to RSS and UAH, 2010s are running slightly COOLER…and so I wish you lots of luck with your 0.16°C warmer prediction 6 years from now. (Note that 0.16°C per decade is still well below what the climate doomsday people are pissing in their pants about.

Evidence shows no warming over 16 to 18 years, steeply rising CO2.
Science tells us that when modeling a chaotic system with an iterative model of finite resolution, one gets an error that grows exponentially over time.

Please look at the temperature anomaly for the entire planet: that is what this wager is about. I assume you believe the wager is about one portion of the warming planetary systems.

This decade, even though only four years in to it, is already warmer than the previous decade. Paranoid conspiracy alarmists are, in this comment section, stating they will wager against an event that has already happened. That is not the behavior of sane human beings.

No, my pledge is on the side of the evidence and therefore the world’s scientists. US$1,000. It is the same amount I have been trying to give away for over four years, but no denier would accept the wager.

Yes, people who lack evidence for their beliefs will indeed insist the statement is idiotic. So?

My wager is US$1,000 on the proposition every climatologist and physicist in the world backs, and all of the evidence backs. It is the same US$1,000 that I have help in escrow for the past five years that I have offered to anyone and everyone if they would put up their US$1,000 on the contrary proposition.

For five years I offered US$1,000 on the proposition that a new record high global average temperature would be set by end of year 2016. I offered the wager to tens of thousands of deniers, and NONE OF YOU CLOWNS WOULD ACCEPT THE WAGER. This showed that deniers do not believe what they assert.

You do realize this bet you keep chiming in on about is 1..too late, and 2 doesn’t comport at all to what was said here.

Being as La Nina is coming as well if you wish to bet in the same way this bet was wagered:

2004-2014 vs 2014-2024

I would be happy to match and exceed your “bet” of 1k dollars. I will do 1500 dollars to the charity of your choice with a receipt and expect the same from you.

The bet will use the UAH RSS composite, the same as the current bet.

I’d feel bad if I didn’t tell you, you realize right now the “coolists” are winning this bet 4 years in, by a decent bit on a composite index. These are the most accurate indices we currently have, and I will not have your scamming as you seem to wish to do. So it will be as straightforward as that. Exact same terms as the bet negotiated here long ago, just fast forward four years. That is plain and simple, even for you.

If the decade of 2011 – 2020 is cooler or the same on average globally than the decade of 2001 – 2010, then warmist Rob Honeycutt and warmist betters will have to pay to charity the total amount that gets pledged by NTZ and readers betting on a cooler decade.

If the average global temperature for the decade 2011 – 2020 is warmer than the average of 2001 – 2010, then NTZ and coolist readers will have to pay everything they pledged to the charity.

Already this decade is .07 degrees WARMER than the previous decade. The rate of warming may not be as fast, but this decade is definitely warmer.
If the bet is that this decade will be warmer than put me down for $100. If this bet is that the rate of warming will be greater, than I will not bet.

the claim is that the two trends are close. They are not. What is close is the rate of warming. I will not bet on the rate of warming. I will bet the $100 on this decade being warmer than the previous decade.

Doug,
On 9 April 2015 you wrote ‘The problem is that coolists lie and distort language’ and you included a link to my blog, Kiwithinker. Let me assure I do my best to be truthful and clear – and so I’ll explain further to clear up any confusion. So let’s pick up the main points:
You said ‘Already this decade is 0.07 degrees WARMER than the previous decade’. That doesn’t look right to me. So let’s calculate the average temperature for the past decade (Jan 2001 to Dec 2010), and for as much of the current decade as was available at the date of your comment, 9 April 2015, (Jan 2011 to Mar 2015).
The average of RSS and UAH monthly readings, from Jan 2001 to Dec 2010, the 10 year average temperature anomaly is 0.2014C. At the time you wrote your comment the period Jan 2011 to Mar 2015, 51 months, is as much of ‘this decade’ as we had available. The average of RSS and UAH monthly readings over that 51 month period is 0.1550C. So, at the time of your comment, the current decade (Jan 2011 to Mar 2015) was actually 0.0464 degrees COOLER than the average of the previous decade.
You mentioned ‘rate of warming’. As far as I recall I have not mentioned ‘rate of warming’ and so I suspect you might have misunderstood what the graph shows. The graph is an accumulating average. It is simply a way of looking at progress toward an average before all the numbers are in. There are 120 months in a decade, ie: there are 120 numbers to add and divide by 120. It is boring waiting, so rather than waiting for the 120 numbers, add and then divide, I have graphed an accumulation of each monthly number divided by 120. The sum of these, which is the end point of the graph, is the 10 year average. The numbers are all in for the previous decade, and the final number is 0.2014C, the overall average for that decade.
And finally, as I understand it, Pierre and Rob have agreed that the bet is based on the 10 year average temperature, of the average UAH and RSS global monthly temperature anomaly, of the two decades 2001 to 2010 and 2011 to 2020.

I expect it has been decided to use whatever current version for both is up and running at the time the bet is settled. Is that the case?

As there is so much snipe on global temp records, I wondered if some people might try to use that as an out clause should a revision change at the 11th hour swing the results the other way than before the revision. Has this factor been settled?

From there Pierre posted the bet on his website. Eventually, the climate realists raised upward of $10,000 in “realist” bets, and contrarians raised something around half of that for the “contrarian” position.